# 2 Destroyers OR 1 Battleship?

• The reason for this poll is because I think that the game designers of A&A Revised did not do their homework when they choose the cost of Battleships (BBs). 24 IPCs is simply too much IMO. To that cost there is an incentive to almost always buy Destroyers (DDs) rather than Battleships. The only reason to buy a BB instead of two DD would be because one does always expect to be superior in firepower and number, simply always win, in all naval combats. In that case the BBs are supposed to absorb one hit.

I think there should be an incentive to buy a more expensive unit.

20 DD

Cost: 240 IPCs
Att: 203 = 60
Def: 20
3 = 60
Hits: 20

10 BB (24 IPC/BB)

Cost: 240 IPCs
Att: 104 = 40
Def: 10
4 = 40
Hits: 20

1st combat cycle

DD scores: 60/6 = 10 hits -> 10 BBs left (absorbed by 2-hit rule for BBs)
BB scores: 40/6 = 6,67 hits -> 13,33 DDs left

2nd combat cycle

DD scores: 13,33*3/6 = 6,67 hits -> 3,33 BBs left
BB scores: 40/6 = 6,67 hits -> 6,67 DDs left

3rd combat cycle

DD scores: 6,673/6 = 3,33 hits -> 0 BBs left
BB scores: 3,33
4/6 = 2,22 hits -> 4,44 DDs left

• What your math doesn’t show you is that battleships can bombard territories at a 4 without any technology rolls, and that battleships are far superior in hit and run engagements. If you go in for a round and absorb hits on battleships then retreat, you have lost nearly nothing while incurring casualties on the other navy. I think the only country who really has to think about DD v BB is the US. I would take the battleships because they’re great at flushing out troops on the islands and because you hardly lose the core of your investment once you get enough of them.

Look at your math; what if the battleships retreat after round 1 if they’re the attackers? You have lost no BBs yet the destroyer force has dwindled.

I’m pretty happy overall with the cost of battleships vs destroyers. If anything I think that destroyers need to have some incentive vs battleships, not the other way around. I’m just not that happy about the cost of navy in general versus land troops and fighters.

And if you’re really looking for the best navy to counter another navy, it is best to build purely submarines, not destroyers. The math supports that subs are the best way to wipe out another navy. 3 subs have the same attack power as 2 destroyers but they can take more hits; and clearly 3 subs is better than 1 battleship provided no retreats and if you’re not concerned with taking islands. Not to mention that sub hits are forced onto navy units, thereby giving a greater chance to take out battleships/carriers without having to claw through sacrificial fighters first.

• What your math doesn’t show you is that battleships can bombard territories at a 4 without any technology rolls, and that battleships are far superior in hit and run engagements…

…And if you’re really looking for the best navy to counter another navy, it is best to build purely submarines, not destroyers. The math supports that subs are the best way to wipe out another navy. 3 subs have the same attack power as 2 destroyers but they can take more hits; and clearly 3 subs is better than 1 battleship provided no retreats and if you’re not concerned with taking islands. Not to mention that sub hits are forced onto navy units, thereby giving a greater chance to take out battleships/carriers without having to claw through sacrificial fighters first.

That is exactly were I wanted this topic to be, about navy builds! In attack a BB is surely better by the use of hit and run engagements, but in defence it is not since no retreat is allowed. And about the shore bombardment, the DD disrupts the opening fire of submarines! That is worth something that could be compared to the advantage of the BBs shore bombardment. I still do think that BBs are not as good as 2 DDs, since practically no one can afford a flotilla of more than say 2 or 3 BBs. The defender always choose the battle, not the attacker. Hence hit and run engagements with BBs are more theoretical than practical. One can almost always avoid hit and run engagements, by staying out of those BBs strike distance (less than 3 sea zones away). One could use this fact to trap the BBs bu giving them a bait, just to lure them within striking distance of some airplanes. In that case these BBs would be hunted down by air before there would be a chance of any hit and run engagements. Since all naval units have a move of 2 there is only one thing one can be sure of, and that is defense.

About the submarines only I must say that a submarine is a worse peer to BBs than DDs, since subs does not defend against air! And as you said, it is not always a drawback, but mostly IMO!

Subs were mostly used in defens due to the slow speed, to patrol a specific sea zone. My suggestion to this is fast carriers and destroyers (movement of 3), what do you think?

Fast Carriers

Description: Speedy ships with landing decks from which fighters can take off and land.

(This is a revised rule for aircraft carriers only, not a new unit)

Cost: 16
Attack: 1
Defense: 3
Move: 3

Special Abilities
Support Destroyers: When a destroyer move along with an aircraft carrier, the destroyer’s movement is increased to 3. This pairing is on a one-to-one basis. The destroyer and the aircraft carrier unit must leaveÂ  from and end up in the same sea zone.

Carry Fighters: Just like the box rules.

Fighter Defense: Just like the box rules.

• Subs don’t need to worry about air because you should always have at least one fully loaded carrier anyways as any nation except Russia. Use the subs as fodder. It’s a great trade to lose subs while they lose fighters/bombers. It’s not a good trade to lose destroyers which cost more than fighters.

An equal IPC of subs will beat out destroyers even with their opening fire suppressed. I don’t see how that makes them a “poorer” comparison than battleships.

I would always have one destroyer if I think I’m facing subs, but I would never go haywire with destroyers over other naval units. If I’m looking to scrub out the opposition’s navy then I’ll go mass subs with a loaded carrier to defend. If I’m looking to invade islands easily and engage in hit and run, then battleships. If I’m worried about their air force truly, then get lots of loaded carriers for defense.

• That destroyer idea is a great fix, since in had advocated something along the same lines for the cruiser unit. If you added that unit you might apply the same rules.

I have also advocated a complete cost change in most naval units, with battleships going down to 20 IPC and destroyers at 8, cruisers at 12-16 range depending on whether they get two hits or not. Did you need those ideas reposted? Some of it is sketchy in my mind, but i still had my notes somewhere…

• Subs don’t need to worry about air because you should always have at least one fully loaded carrier anyways as any nation except Russia. Use the subs as fodder. It’s a great trade to lose subs while they lose fighters/bombers. It’s not a good trade to lose destroyers which cost more than fighters.

An equal IPC of subs will beat out destroyers even with their opening fire suppressed. I don’t see how that makes them a “poorer” comparison than battleships.

…. If I’m looking to scrub out the opposition’s navy then I’ll go mass subs with a loaded carrier to defend. If I’m looking to invade islands easily and engage in hit and run, then battleships. If I’m worried about their air force truly, then get lots of loaded carriers for defense.

You know what! If you stack subs with a fully loaded carrier, thats the most certain way of loosing money, even worse than a stack of transporters and a fully loaded AC! I would attack that stack and AC with a fleet of fighters and bombers! Then the stack would defend with 2 ftrs and a AC, were as all subs cannot defend but just work out as cannon fodder. Most likely the subs will be wiped out in the very first combat cycle or any left overs (subs) will submerge (retreat)!

What do you think about the fast carrier rule of mine, and why?

• I don’t see how you have both a fleet of destroyers and so many fighters/bombers to threaten me. Like I said, I only build subs if I’m looking to fight a naval war. They are clearly the best unit to kill other navies with.  I don’t ever mass destroyers because there are more efficient units for different goals. I have no opinion on your fast carriers because I plan to adhere to LHTR and I don’t experiment with extra rules; call me lazy or conforming if you want ; P

• … I have no opinion on your fast carriers because I plan to adhere to LHTR and I don’t experiment with extra rules; call me lazy or conforming if you want ; P

Larry has actually used some of my ideas, since I wrote long time before he did. Like NAs were BBs attack and defend on a 5 and the tech supersubmarine were subs only may be attacked by air units if a DD is present! My Air Supremacy rule will not take long before he will imply as well, at least that is what I believe! I am just great for that, since my work actually leads to something. I as well as you agree that the naval units are pretty balanced, but also that they are too expensive. At least that is what I think. So my suggestion is that you try those rules of Larry for a while like me my self, but also try to make it even better. If it wasn’t for me and my alike, BBs would still only take one hit and cost 24 IPCs. More over IPM-effect would still be there, tanks defending on a 2. Finally I am very sure that the last thing is not said about the tech-list. I am pretty sure the Combined Bombardment will be exchanged with Heavy Artillery. Well thats all for now folks!

• Well to be honest with you I don’t know what to say about fast carriers. I haven’t even experimented with the US NA fast carriers. The thing is I can only really see how this helps the Allies more than the Axis; it allows the Indian fleet travel farther than normal as well as probably helps the US/UK with defensive maneuvers in the Atlantic. Why do you think that carriers need global improvement?

I didn’t know you were responsible for Japan’s Most Powerful Battleships! I like that change in LHTR because lightning assaults was useless -_- I’ve tried lobbying Larry to improve Tokyo Express and Dug-In Defenders which I feel are extremely poor and useless NAs because the way I play Japan I don’t build destroyers; I build subs for fodder against the US since I already have a very strong core of battleships/carriers, and I’d much rather buy a cheap transport to carry 2 units rather than one infantry in a destroyer . Personally I think that Dug-In Defenders should give infantry resistance or immunity to bombardments, because currently this NA is so poor since the infantry are usually bombarded before they can take advantage of their roll of 3. Who makes infantry on islands anyways?

• …Why do you think that carriers need global improvement?

I think that fast carriers along with destroyers bring bring a better game in a historical perspective, but most of all better naval balance. As we said before we both think that naval units are too expensive. Thats is one thing. You also say (indirectly) destroyers need to be a better buy. Indirectly this means that destroyers need to dominate subs some how, cause now they don’t. I think one way is to restate the values of the destroyer unit or adding some special abilities.

My suggestion is this:

Destroyers

Description: Small, fast warships that hunt submarines.

(This is a revised rule for destroyers only, not a new unit)

Cost: 10
Attack: 2
Defense: 3
Move: 2 (3 when supported by a carrier)

Special Abilities
Supported by Carriers: When a destroyer move along with an aircraft carrier, the destroyer’s movement is increased to 3. This pairing is on a one-to-one basis. The destroyer and the aircraft carrier unit must leaveÂ  from and end up in the same sea zone.

Submarine Disruption: A destroyer cancels the special abilities of submarines. Enemy submarines cannot move freely through a sea zone containing your destroyer. If you have destroyers in a combat involving enemy submarines, they attack and defend on a 3. Any casualties of enemy submarines can return fire. Also, enemy submarines cannot submerge while your destroyer is present.

Shore Bombardment: In an amphibious assault, your destroyers may like battleships make a support shot on amphibious assaults on a 2. Each destroyer fires once during the Conduct Opening Fire step against enemy land units in the territory being attacked (the enemy units do not fire back). A destroyer cannot conduct shore bombardment if it was involved in a sea combat prior the amphibious assault.

If one want to keep the values as is for the destroyer, since they are pretty balanced, I suggest to keep the 3/3 DD and just add the extra special abilities. The Tech Combined Bombardment is replaced by Heavy Artillery (artillery attack on a 3). What do you think about this special abilities, would you like to buy destroyers at any time under any of these these rule modifications?

These rule modifications will imply:

• Subs will not be as good for cannon fodder as before, due to a movement of 2 compared to 3

• Subs will be more of a defensive unit, due to a movement of 2 compared to 3

• Hit and run engagements will be less likely for Battleships, hence reduced cost (20-22 IPCs)

• Destroyers become more valuable as sub hunters, for carrier protection

• Destroyers will be more valuable for amphibious assaults, due to shore bombardment capability

• Figthers will become less dominant in naval battles, due to the increasedÂ  movment of ACs and DDs

All this about the 3 movement seems to favor Allies you say, but that only makes sense if Axis play defensive! These new rules favors offensive action, but still it is cheaper to defend than attack! I cannot see why these rules should make it easier for US to get Japan or Germany faster, since transporters still only have a movement of 2. And the extra movement for ACs and DDs need to be used wise since it will spread the naval forces thin. If an AC with DD is in reach for an air attack, it will be an easy pray for those fighters and bombers.

… I’ve tried lobbying Larry to improve Tokyo Express and Dug-In Defenders which I feel are extremely poor and useless NAs because the way I play Japan I don’t build destroyers; I build subs for fodder against the US since I already have a very strong core of battleships/carriers, and I’d much rather buy a cheap transport to carry 2 units rather than one infantry in a destroyer. Personally I think that Dug-In Defenders should give infantry resistance or immunity to bombardments…

This is my solution to the Japanese lousy NAs. Pretty much like you said, about the immune to shore bombardment thing.Â

1.Â  Tokyo Express
The Japanese High Command used destroyer convoys to ferry infantry. Allied forces at Guadalcanal dubbed this the “Tokyo Express”.
Each of your destroyers may act as a transport for one infantry. These destroyers follow the same rules for loading and offloading units as transports do. Your destroyers can also conduct shore bombardment (using an attack of 2) in an amphibious assault.

2.Â  Kamikaze Attacks (revised)
A terrifying development was the Japanese suicide tactics as a desperate means of slowing the Allied advance. The Japanese used pilots who only knew how to take off and dive into their target with an aircraft full of explosives.
You may make six Kamikaze attacks during the game for free. Kamikazes are not represented by a unit, hence a Kamikaze can not be taken as a casualty. Use a die to keep track on how many Kamikaze remain to be used. These attacks may be launched if an Allied player move ships within 2 sea zones from Japan, after all combat movement has been completed. Kamikaze may target specific enemy ships, except for submarines. They attack on a roll of 2 or less during the opening fire step of the first cycle of combat only. Before you rolls dice to launch a Kamikaze attack, you must announce the target(s) and how many Kamikazes that are participating. If a Kamikaze is used during an allied combat phase this counts as a naval battle and will prevent all ships in that sea zone from conducting shore bombardment.

3.Â  Long Lance Torpedoes (replace Kaiten Torpedoes)
The Japanese Navy possessed superior torpedoes in comparison with its Western counterparts, possessing an unequaled combination of speed, range, and hitting power.
During the first cycle of combat only (both attack and defense qualify) your destroyers fire in the opening fire step of combat. Any cassualties destroyed are removed from play, with no chance to counter-attack. In succeeding cycles of combat, your destroyers fire in the attacking units fire or defending units fire step of combat. This special ability is cancelled if enemy fighters are present.

4.Â  Super Dreadnoughts (replace Lightning Assaults)
Dreadnoughts or leviathans like Yamato and Musashi were the largest and most powerful battleships the world has ever seen.
Your battleships attack (imply shore bombardment) and defend on 5.

5.Â  Dug-In Defenses (revised)
The Japanese introduced the tactic of endurance engagements intended to inflict maximum casualties. This tacic included bunkers and pillboxes connected by tunnels.
All your infantry on islands are immune to shore bombardment and defend on a 3.

6.Â  Banzai Attacks
A fearsome rallying cry of the Imperial Japanese Army, â€œBanzai!â€ meant, â€œMay you live ten thousand years.â€
When you begin an attack with only infantry, all those infantry attack on a 2. This also applies to any amphibious assault in which all your attacking units in the land combat (other than those conducting shore bombardment) consist of only infantry."

• This new statement for destroyers would make them more desirable than subs as cannon fodder for defense, but for naval attack subs would still be the better piece to buy! Still those destroyers are good for shore bombardment (island hopping) and fast. Well, one could also skip the fast carrier thing and just stick to the decreased cost and attack value, but keep the shore bombardment ability. Any suggestions or comments?

Destroyers

Description: Small, fast warships that hunt submarines.

(This is a revised rule for destroyers only, not a new unit)

Cost: 10
Attack: 2
Defense: 3
Move: 2 (3 when supported by a carrier)

Special Abilities
Supported by Carriers: When a destroyer move along with an aircraft carrier, the destroyer’s movement is increased to 3. This pairing is on a one-to-one basis. The destroyer and the aircraft carrier unit must leave  from and end up in the same sea zone.

Submarine Disruption: A destroyer cancels the special abilities of submarines. Enemy submarines cannot move freely through a sea zone containing your destroyer. If you have destroyers in a combat involving enemy submarines, they attack and defend on a 3. Any casualties of enemy submarines can return fire. Also, enemy submarines cannot submerge while your destroyer is present.

Shore Bombardment: In an amphibious assault, your destroyers may like battleships make a support shot on amphibious assaults on a 2. Each destroyer fires once during the Conduct Opening Fire step against enemy land units in the territory being attacked (the enemy units do not fire back). A destroyer cannot conduct shore bombardment if it was involved in a sea combat prior the amphibious assault.

• Why is the defense at 3? a destroyer is very light and hase little armor protection, it should remain at 2/2 which allows the cruiser unit to easilly be installed within your system at 3/3/2/16  (takes 2 hits) . Does this not present a clearer picture of what these vessels actually were capable of?

summarize:

battleship
4/4/2/20  (two hits)

cruiser
3/3/3/16  (two hits)

destroyer
2/2/2/8  (one hit)

Carrier
1/3/3/16  ( one hit)

• @Imperious:

Why is the defense at 3? a destroyer is very light and hase little armor protection, it should remain at 2/2 which allows the cruiser unit to easilly be installed within your system at 3/3/2/16Â  (takes 2 hits) ….

The reason for a 2/3 DD is because you just dont want another piece to buy! And because of that 2/3 makes most sens since it is balanced and also give some historical accuracy as well. The balance thing is because now one want to buy DD for defens since it is better than SS. DDs are however not better than SS in naval attacks, but is good in attacks were one can use shore bombardment(island hopping). DDs In World War IIÂ  were truly all-purpose ships, ready to fight off attacks from the air, the surface and under the surface. They handled a variety of duties such as picket ship, escorting larger ships and convoys, shore bombardment, rescuing pilots who were forced down at sea and even acting as mailman for the fleet. DDs were armed with dual-purpose guns (small - around 5 inches), torpedoes, depth charges and antiaircraft guns. This made them more of an defensive weapon, due to the fact range of the DDs armament compared to the gunnery of BBs. IMO only the Imperial Japanese Navy had DDs that could be said to be as good in attack as in defens due to excellent torpedoes and night combat tactics. The best shot for torpedoes is always as close as possible, and the best circumstances for close shots are at night. I think this 2/3 DD with shore bombardment actually will do better than bring in a new unit (cruiser), but I need to play test it. Would you like to do that as well?

Why 2 hits for the cruiser when carriers just can take 1 hit, does not make sense in a historical point of view. They were mostly built of the same hulls.

• Ok a few points… Destroyers getting a 3 on defense is to close to a battleship and the same as a carrier, which as you know that is built on the same hull. The cost in real terms of a destroyer or submarine is about the same and in some cases the the destroyer was lighter than the submarine and had a lower cost basis. That is why they should cost the same. The attributes of each vessel are basically like hot and cold water each having nearly opposite justifications for their purpose. One preys under the tactic of stealth, while the other escorts more important vessels, looking for trouble. A value of three on defense shows a destroyer to be something like an armed cruiser and makes it too sweet a buy, even if you maintain that 10 IPC price point… which i argue  should goto 8 IPC ( like the sub). If your taking their defense by qualifing that 5 inch gun and comparing it to a battleship which has 14-16 inch guns, plus a number of secondary 7-8 inch guns, then the value should not be demonstrated with this 3 value, but rather a 1. While you have to factor into the equation its torpedo attack that would marginally add some value, but destroyers rarely were able to torpedo a larger ship unless it was allready crippled so they sent them in to give the coupe de grace and finish them off. Their main task was for protection of convoys, ASW, invasion escorts, and AA support in the event of aerial combat against the fleet.

On the issue of carriers and cruiser hulls its correct to figure that they have the same basic hull structure and they should take by that example up to two hits, however the carriers surface is flat and not nearly as heavily plated and the gun crusted cruiser. The carriers were longer and wider and had many larger cargo pockets in order to carry planes which were under the top deck. The cruiser was basically a JR. battleship with caliber guns in the 9-12 in range and they were plated well and down below the decks were much smaller rooms with many more watertight doors. I have been on these vessels in san diego on a tour and their is a big difference on construction. That is why a carrier should get really one hit, while a cruiser should get two IMO.

as far as the math looks it also fits much better. A cheaper destroyer at 8 IPC 2/2/2 is a good buy, while that battleship at 20 4/4/2 also has merits, but the carrier was been proven that its a better deal, because its planes can attack any other unit and are more flexible, so the carrier to be viable basically needs to not change too much ( at least not to a two hitter).

a cruiser whether its adopted or not will fit perfectly under my system at 3/3/2 taking those two hits and costing around 14 IPC

I want to really elaborate further with some additional information , but time has run out. BTW im working on a Jutland game that ill be allowing a free download (boardgame) . Any input would be helpful on that project.

You know i fully support the work your doing and i want you to have the most realistic outcome so that it will be widely accepted by the vast poll of players so that they can eventually take further steps into more advanced systems.

• @Imperious:

Ok a few points… Destroyers getting a 3 on defense is to close to a battleship and the same as a carrier, which as you know that is built on the same hull. The cost in real terms of a destroyer or submarine is about the same and in some cases the the destroyer was lighter than the submarine and had a lower cost basis. That is why they should cost the same. The attributes of each vessel are basically like hot and cold water each having nearly opposite justifications for their purpose. One preys under the tactic of stealth, while the other escorts more important vessels, looking for trouble. A value of three on defense shows a destroyer to be something like an armed cruiser and makes it too sweet a buy, even if you maintain that 10 IPC price point… which i argueÂ  should goto 8 IPC ( like the sub). If your taking their defense by qualifing that 5 inch gun and comparing it to a battleship which has 14-16 inch guns, plus a number of secondary 7-8 inch guns, then the value should not be demonstrated with this 3 value, but rather a 1. While you have to factor into the equation its torpedo attack that would marginally add some value, but destroyers rarely were able to torpedo a larger ship unless it was allready crippled so they sent them in to give the coupe de grace and finish them off. Their main task was for protection of convoys, ASW, invasion escorts, and AA support in the event of aerial combat against the fleet.

On the issue of carriers and cruiser hulls its correct to figure that they have the same basic hull structure and they should take by that example up to two hits, however the carriers surface is flat and not nearly as heavily plated and the gun crusted cruiser. The carriers were longer and wider and had many larger cargo pockets in order to carry planes which were under the top deck. The cruiser was basically a JR. battleship with caliber guns in the 9-12 in range and they were plated well and down below the decks were much smaller rooms with many more watertight doors. I have been on these vessels in san diego on a tour and their is a big difference on construction. That is why a carrier should get really one hit, while a cruiser should get two IMO.

as far as the math looks it also fits much better. A cheaper destroyer at 8 IPC 2/2/2 is a good buy, while that battleship at 20 4/4/2 also has merits, but the carrier was been proven that its a better deal, because its planes can attack any other unit and are more flexible, so the carrier to be viable basically needs to not change too much ( at least not to a two hitter)……

No frankly, the BBs and DDs need some extra spice to make them desirable IMHO. I don’t know how to counter this problem, but I do have suggestions. Like those mentioned before. A 2/2/2 DD would be dominant and brake them game, since it would be the best buy for both defens and attack. Why would someone buy a SS (submarine) when one can buy a DD for the same price, but the DD can defend against air. If your enemy buys a DD the opening fire for your SS would be lost, hence no benefit for buying any SS.  Another thing is that 3 DD (2/2/2) would be a much better buy then a BB, so the price for the BB need to go down, 20 IPCs (for reasons not disclosed right now).

Well, there is still one Q to answer and a problem to solve. The problem is how the subs could be more desirable My first thought is to take a look att the rules for subs in A&A:E were subs were not susceptible to air attacks without destroyer presens. Another feature from A&A:E is the interdiction ability of subs. Since there are no convoy centers, my suggestion is a rule that would do (see “Convoy Raids” below). So now that we have found a possible solution to the problem, that would make the subs desirable irrespective of the improved DD and its submarine disruption ability. Ok great, but what about the Q; Will BBs and DDs be desirable at all? Well, they are still very much the same type of units but improved. It is now a tough choice between a DD in defens or fully loaded AC, and between BBs or DDs in attack se below:

DD ( 360 IPCs)

Att: 245 = 90
Def: 2
45 = 90
Hits: 45

AC + 2 Ftr (360 IPCs)

Att: 101+203 = 70
Def: 103+204 = 110
Hits: 30

BB / 20 IPCs (360 IPCs)

Att: 184 =72
Def: 18
4 =72
Hits: 36

If DDs are not allowed for shore bombardment the BB will probably be the best choice as long as no subs are around.  An extra spice to the BBs would be an opening fire ability in conjunction with an inability to hit subs, meaning subs can never be hit by BBs. That is goody goody and the 24 IPC price for a BB would be acceptable. Well, it was just a thought! In defens ACs would still be the choice along with some cannon fodder, now not only SSs but DDs as well. But in defens, I would buy mostly DDs. DDs are simply the best balanced allround piece to buy and will therefore most likely be the mainstay in the fleets. More over, subs will now be important for special reasons like the transporters or more likely bombers, to “sink” IPCs from your enemies like bombers in SBRs! Ok, I think that’s it! The bottom line is no cruiser unit is needed. Belive it or not Impy, the fewer pieces the better it gets, since the game is pretty messy as is And by the way, your arguments about the DDs defens on a 3 is not realistic. I must say that if an AC defens on a 3, then an DD will most likely do as well. You are right about that an AC is much bigger, but that just means easier to hit as well as a bigger possibility to absorb hits. I think the DDs size and gunnery could be said to be at least equal to an AC in both antiaircraft gunnery and the size of guns compared to its size! And remeber a DD unit most likely represent a bigger number of destroyers than a carriers for a AC unit. Don’t you think?! The torpedoes should not be underestimated, remember that the DD was invented to hunt torpedoboats down due to their effectiveness against capital warships. They are small and fast and were used for hit and run engagements.

Convoy Raids

The U.K, U.S. and Japanese players are susceptible to supply line interdiction. This rule imply that enemy submarines may conduct an economic attack against the supply lines (sea zones) adjacent to any of these nations industrial complex to â€œsinkâ€ IPCs. On the U.K, U.S. and Japanese players collect income phase, the player must subtract 2 IPCs to the bank for each enemy submarine within 1 sea zone of an industrial complex contolled by respective nation. For each enemy submarine within 2 sea zones of an industrial complex, the player must subtract 1 IPC. Any submarine that became submerged during the subjected players turn’s conduct combat phase, does not cause any economic loss. Multiple submarines may affect a single industrial complex, but the maximum combined loss can be no more than the territoryâ€s (containting the industrial complex) income value. An individual submarine may only affect one industrial complex during each turn, but can affect multiple industrial complexes each round (i.e. one industrial complex per player).

• A fully loaded CV is not always the best buy.

To invade a province quickly you it’s better to use 3 DDs with 9, rather than 1 CV 2 ftr at 7. If you’ve got time you can force the enemy to attack you in that SZ, but there are still many reasons why a fully loaded CV is not always the best.

• @Afrika:

A fully loaded CV is not always the best buy.

To invade a province quickly you it’s better to use 3 DDs with 9, rather than 1 CV 2 ftr at 7. If you’ve got time you can force the enemy to attack you in that SZ, but there are still many reasons why a fully loaded CV is not always the best.

You don’t get it! I said start with a fully loaded AC for defens. If you consider a naval attack then complement with just subs and one DD if the enemy has got subs! What I said was that a combo of just fully loaded ACs and subs, except for one DD, is the best buy all times!!! The bottom line is that there are no incentives to buy more than one DD or any BB!Â  Â :evil:

• Hi agian Impy,

A quick fix to our problem would be to keep the 3/3/2 DD and add the special ability of shore bombardment on a 2. However it will not solve the big problem, it will just make DDs a bit more desirable. But even then I dont know if I go for DDs. But if I consider the 2/3/2 DD and the shore bombardment ability to a cost of 10 IPC, then I would consider to buy it for defens. But still not enough. No what is needed is the same reason one buy expensive ground units, a better mobility. A fully loaded AC has that benefit of extra movement, due to the fighters. Fast carriers and destroyers would most likely make them more desirable. Don’t you think??? Â :?

• If you bring down the DD cost to eight and leave the values as they are 2/2/2 then wont they be a good buy? they present a good foil to subs like “matter and anti matter” or a positive or negative charge. Thats a simplistic way to look at their roles. If you only buy subs you can protect your ships, and if you buy only destroyers, they can be attacked by planes, plus dont get the free shot against groups of destroyerless ships ( unescorted). i would buy or consider them equals but for entirely different purposes, both needed in the game. Check out my Jutland rules under (variants thread) what you think>? ideas?

• Not necessarily, since subs don’t attack air.

@The:

u don’t get it! I said start with a fully loaded AC for defens. If you consider a naval attack then complement with just subs and one DD if the enemy has got subs! What I said was that a combo of just fully loaded ACs and subs, except for one DD, is the best buy all times!!! The bottom line is that there are no incentives to buy more than one DD or any BB!

• @Afrika:

Not necessarily, since subs don’t attack air.

Well AK, what a combo means depends on what the opponent does! If the enemy has build up a fleet, that player most likely lack a big airflottila since it cost a lot to buy a fleet or an air flotilla! So if you will attack a fleet then buy subs, that are protected by a fully loaded ACs and perhaps a DD. Always try to stack your navy in one sea zone.

By the way what did you vote?

• … battleships are far superior in hit and run engagements. If you go in for a round and absorb hits on battleships then retreat, you have lost nearly nothing while incurring casualties on the other navy…

IMO: Yes this is an advantage, but as I said it is probable more theoretical than practical when veterans play the game, who are aware of every units cons and pros!

… I would take the battleships because they’re great at flushing out troops on the islands and because you hardly lose the core of your investment once you get enough of them…

IMO: You are right about once you get enough of them, but ones you do you most likely lost a lot of land territories, due to the fact that a any BB will be bought to the cost of lost land troops. And as you said (see comment from you below) land is cheaper to buy relative navy.

…I’m pretty happy overall with the cost of battleships vs destroyers. If anything I think that destroyers need to have some incentive vs battleships, not the other way around. I’m just not that happy about the cost of navy in general versus land troops and fighters…

About your incentive for DDs vs BBs I do have a suggestion. What about If DDs got the ability to bombard on a 2 in an amphibious assault, like a battleship? Then control of the sea, would be more valuable, hence a bigger incentive to buy navy! The main reason for why the game designers didn’t want the destroyer bombardment from A&A:P and A&A:E was because they wanted pieces to have only one main special ability. But also the fact that the territories in A&A:R were too big compared to A&A:P. A relative smaller map means that the destroyer bombardment would be more useful and hence a too big benefit. I simply don’t agree upon that and have never got an argument that are good enough to convince me.
Â
I would like you to be more precise on why you are not pleased about the cost of navy in general versus land troops and fighters. IMO I think the cost and abilities of fighters are balanced compared to navy units abilities and costs. How ever I do agree upon that land troops in general are a better buy than sea units.

In order to make the air as well as navy more attractive to buy relative land troops I do have four house rules that would do:

Destroyer Bombardment
In an amphibious assault, your destroyers may like battleships make a support shot on amphibious assaults on a 2. Each destroyer fires once during the Conduct Opening Fire step against enemy land units in the territory being attacked (the enemy units do not fire back). A destroyer cannot conduct shore bombardment if it was involved in a sea combat prior the amphibious assault.

Air Supremacy
Fighters can support infantry attacks and artillery defense if no enemy fighters are present. Air supremacy increases your infantryâ€s attack to 2 or your artilleryâ€s defense to 3. Each infantry or artillery must be matched one-for-one with a supporting fighter.

Heavy Artillery (replace Combined Bombardment)
Your artillery are now heavy artillery. They attack on a 3.

Convoy Raids
The U.K, U.S. and Japanese players are susceptible to supply line interdiction. This rule imply that enemy submarines may conduct an economic attack against the supply lines (sea zones) adjacent to any of these nations industrial complex to â€œsinkâ€ IPCs. On the U.K, U.S. and Japanese players collect income phase, the player must subtract 2 IPCs to the bank for each enemy submarine within 1 sea zone of an industrial complex contolled by respective nation. For each enemy submarine within 2 sea zones of an industrial complex, the player must subtract 1 IPC. Any submarine that became submerged during the subjected players turn’s conduct combat phase, does not cause any economic loss. Multiple submarines may affect a single industrial complex, but the maximum combined loss can be no more than the territoryâ€s (containting the industrial complex) income value. An individual submarine may only affect one industrial complex during each turn, but can affect multiple industrial complexes each round (i.e. one industrial complex per player).

• IMO: You are right about once you get enough of them, but ones you do you most likely lost a lot of land territories, due to the fact that a any BB will be bought to the cost of lost land troops. And as you said (see comment from you below) land is cheaper to buy relative navy.

Maybe I should be clear. The only nation who is really thinking of big navies is the US, and he can afford to mess around with battleships if he thinks his allies can hold out. He hardly has territories to lose, and Japan is hardly in a position to fortify 3 islands with land troops especially considering they have no complexes and it takes a few turns or many transports to get infantry to the farthest one (east indies).

• The supersupmarine tech cost around 30 IPCs to achieve and a submarine (SS) cost 8 IPCs. So If we consider a fleet of 72 IPCs we see that BBs are never really a choice if one will invest 78 IPCs (6 subs + super sub tech). Break even seems to be around 72 IPCs for BB vs SS (considering super subs tech)! I know this more of theoretical than practical work, but I consider it interesting!

3 BB (24IPCs/BB)

Cost: 72 IPCs
Att: 34 = 12
Def: 3
4 = 12
Hits: 6

5 super SS (30 IPC tech + 8IPCs/SS)

Cost: 70 IPCs
Att: 53 = 15
Def: 5
3 = 15
Hits: 5

1st combat cycle

sSS scores: 15/6 = 2,5 hits -> 3 BB left (absorbed by 2-hit rule for BBs)
BB scores: 12/6 = 2 hits -> 3 sSS left

2nd combat cycle

sSS scores: 33/6 = 1,5 hits -> 2 BB left (opening fire means no return fire from casualties)
BB scores: 2
4/6 = 1,33 hits -> 1,67 sSS left

3rd combat cycle

sSS scores: 1,673/6 = 0,83 hits -> 1,17 BB left
BB scores: 1,17
4/6 = 0,78 hits -> 0,89 sSS left

4th combat cycle

sSS scores: 0,893/6 = 0,44 hits -> 0,72 BB left
BB scores: 0,72
4/6 = 0,48 hits -> 0,41 sSS left

5th combat cycle

sSS scores: 0,413/6 = 0,20 hits -> 0,52 BB left
BB scores: 0,52
4/6 = 0,35 hits -> 0,06 sSS left

• Maybe I should be clear. The only nation who is really thinking of big navies is the US, and he can afford to mess around with battleships if he thinks his allies can hold out. He hardly has territories to lose, and Japan is hardly in a position to fortify 3 islands with land troops especially considering they have no complexes and it takes a few turns or many transports to get infantry to the farthest one (east indies).

To win the battle of the seas should be an incentive, that is why I suggest Convoy Rule and Destroyer Bombardment. By these to new rules it will be more important to take control of the sea, or one will get bombarded and ruined and cannot do much about it! Japan and Germany seems to be the loosers one might think, but I think it depends on how you play. One thing is sure one must change the stategy a bit. The Air Supremacy and Heavy Artilley tech favor the Axis in my opinion, but just a bit. I dont think these rules will tip te game too much to Axis or Allies favor, but rather make the navy more important! What do you think about these optional rules of mine? Do you like any of them?

1

3

8

9

17

4

42

8